Top Court Frees 6 Murder Accused "With Heavy Heart" As 71 Witnesses Turn Hostile
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Friday "with a heavy heart" acquitted six murder accused after majority witnesses, including the victim's son, turned hostile in the case.
The "unsolved crime" saw 71 of the total 87 witnesses retracting from their statements.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran set aside the Karnataka High Court's September 27, 2023 order which rejected the trial court's finding and convicted the six accused in the case.
"With a heavy heart for the unsolved crime, but with absolutely no misgivings on the issue of lack of evidence, against the accused arrayed, we acquit the accused, reversing the judgment of the high court and restoring that of the trial court," Justice Chandran said in a 49-page verdict he authored on behalf of the bench.
The bench lamented the witnesses turning hostile in court and the "overzealous" investigation which was in "total ignorance of basic tenets of criminal law" often reducing "prosecution to a mockery".
"Witnesses mount the box to disown prior statements, deny recoveries made, feign ignorance of aggravating circumstances spoken of during investigation and eye witnesses turn blind. Here is a classic case of 71 of the total 87 witnesses including eye witnesses, turning hostile, leaving the prosecution to stand on the testimony of the police and official witnesses," the bench said.
The court went on, "Even a young boy, the crucial eyewitness, who saw his father being hacked to death, failed to identify the assailants." The high court, the top court said, relied on the testimony of the police and official witnesses to convict the accused.
"We cannot but say that the high court has egregiously erred in convicting the accused on the evidence led and has jumped into presumptions and assumptions based on the story scripted by the prosecution without any legal evidence being available," the bench said.
After analysing the evidence and the testimonies of the witnesses, the court's "only view" held the prosecution's utter failure in proving the allegations against the accused.
"More so all the witnesses had turned hostile during the trial," it added.
"Whatever be the reason behind such hostility, it cannot result in a conviction, based on the testimony of the investigating officers which is founded only on Section 161 CrPC statements and voluntary statements of accused; the former violative of Section 162 of the CrPC and the latter in breach of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act," the bench held.
Directing the release of the accused, if in custody and not required in any other case, the court said, "Truth is always a chimera and the illusion surrounding it can only be removed by valid evidence led, either direct or indirect, and in the event of it being circumstantial, providing a chain of circumstances with connecting links leading to the conclusion of the guilt of the accused and only the guilt of the accused, without leaving any reasonable doubt for any hypothesis of innocence." The bench said it could only accede to and share the consternation of the division bench of the high court, "bordering on desperation" owing to the "futility" of the entire exercise.
"That is an occupational hazard, every judge should learn to live with, which cannot be a motivation to tread the path of righteousness and convict those accused somehow, even when there is a total absence of legal evidence; to enter into a purely moral conviction, total anathema to criminal jurisprudence," it added.
It came on record that a rivalry between two brothers resulted in the death of one Ramkrishna, who worked for one of them before joining the other brother.
The former employee along with his six associates conspired and killed Ramkrishna for shifting loyalties when he was taking stroll with his son on April 28, 2011, the police alleged.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Karnataka High Court appoints legal expert to assist in Bengaluru stampede case
The Karnataka High Court on Monday appointed Senior Advocate S Susheela as amicus curiae in the suo motu case concerning the stampede at Bengaluru's M Chinnaswamy Stadium that claimed 11 lives and injured several others. The incident took place on June 4 during a public celebration held for Royal Challengers Bengaluru's (RCB) Indian Premier League 2025 amicus curiae, meaning 'friend of the court,' is an independent legal expert appointed to offer impartial assistance in complex or sensitive cases. advertisementThe bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice VM Kameshwar Rao and Justice CM Joshi, is hearing the matter. During Monday's proceedings, the court directed the registry to share the petition, all relevant documents, and a sealed status report submitted by the state government with the newly appointed amicus. The bench noted that both the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) and DNA Entertainment Networks Pvt Ltd., who have been added as respondents, had sought more time to file their court also raised the issue of whether the sealed status report should be placed in the public domain. 'We want to hear the parties on whether to permit the status report on sealed cover. Today we will appoint an amicus curiae in the case,' the bench General Shashi Kiran Shetty said that the amicus could not meaningfully assist the court unless the contents of the sealed report were made available. He assured the court that the issue would be dealt with state counsel has argued that the status reports should remain sealed until ongoing magisterial and judicial inquiries are complete, citing the presence of preliminary findings. However, other counsel and intervention applicants have urged the court to make the report public. The High Court has asked the amicus to assist in deciding the issue and posted the case for further hearing on Tuesday, July 1. IN THIS STORY#Karnataka
United News of India
2 hours ago
- United News of India
SC declines urgent listing for clarification plea by Bhima Koregaon accused Hany Babu
New Delhi, June 23 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant an urgent hearing to a plea filed by former Delhi University professor Hany Babu, an accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, seeking a clarification that he could approach the High Court for bail after withdrawing his earlier plea in the top court. A vacation bench comprising justices KV Viswanathan and NK Singh directed that the matter be listed after the court reopens following the summer break, and declined to entertain the application during the limited working days of the vacation. During the mentioning, the counsel for Babu argued that several co-accused in the case had been granted bail by the Supreme Court either on merits or due to prolonged incarceration. The application was filed seeking a clarification following a May 2 observation by the Bombay High Court, which stated that Babu should seek clarity from the Supreme Court about his liberty to approach the High Court for bail after withdrawing his special leave petition. Justice Viswanathan questioned the delay in filing the application. 'The order was passed on May 2. The court was fully functional till May 23. Why was the application not moved earlier?' he asked. In response, the counsel submitted that obtaining certified copies of the court's orders took time. However, Justice Viswanathan remarked, 'Even in urgent matters, we have filed and got cases listed without certified copies.' Babu was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in July 2020 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for alleged Maoist links in connection with the Bhima Koregaon violence. His bail plea was rejected by the Bombay High Court in September 2022. In May 2024, he withdrew his bail petition from the Supreme Court stating a change in circumstances, intending to move the High Court afresh. However, the High Court noted that the Supreme Court's order did not explicitly grant him liberty to re-approach the lower court, prompting the present application for clarification. The Supreme Court's refusal to list the matter urgently means the issue will now be heard only after the court's summer recess concludes. UNI SNG PRS
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court deprecates ‘trend' of accused reneging on promised payment after securing bail
The Supreme Court on Monday (June 23, 2025) objected to the 'trend' of accused persons gaining bail by voluntarily offering to pay considerable sums of money, especially in tax evasion and financial fraud cases, as a sign of their bona fides, only to later renege payment to the court. A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh said these persons would approach the courts again, seeking exemption from making the payment by either claiming the bail condition to be stringent or blaming their lawyers for acting without their authority. Justice Viswanathan orally observed that the courts had become frequent witnesses to this ploy in recent times. Also Read | 'No rule one must spend a year in jail for relief': Supreme Court grants bail in money laundering case 'We cannot allow parties to play ducks and drakes with the court… We cannot permit parties to take advantage of a device resorted by them to secure orders of release,' the Bench noted. 'When parties move applications for anticipatory/regular bail, voluntary offers are made by their counsel to deposit substantial amounts to show bona fide and secure liberty. Thereafter, a grievance is made before a higher court that the condition imposed for bail was onerous and illegal,' Justice Viswanthan observed. The Bench was hearing the bail plea of a man accused of tax evasion to the tune of over ₹13 crore. He was arrested in March 2025. Also Read | Courts must stick to strict conditions if bail is not for violation of fundamental rights: SC judgment The petitioner, represented by senior advocate V. Chidambresh, had previously secured bail from the Madras High Court by arguing that he had made a part payment of the disputed amount and was willing to pay a further ₹2.5 crore after his release. However, he had failed to pay the promised amount and the High Court had dismissed his bail. He had moved the apex court against the dismissal. Noting that the top court was 'conscious of his rights under Article 21, but was equally conscious of the sanctity of the judicial process', the Bench initially directed the man to surrender before the trial court within a week. However, the Bench, considering the man's familial responsibilities, recalled the order for his surrender.
